the future of TV likely remains locked in the hands of the cable operators and broadcasters.

Monopolies, whether obtained piecemeal through exclusivity contracts and non-competition from a very small pool of peers, or continually increased by foolish governments are powerful things.

Copyright holders and Transport providers have a stupidly large advantage that reduces their need to improve themselves.

To help chip away at this, I refuse to pay for video content except to Netflix, who's service has been awesomely costumer convenient, and who is slowly making strides at transport (through peering and data centers) and content (netflix originals).

Smart TV has no major technological hurdles, only legal ones. Video piracy is the only factor capable of forcing change in the industry.

There are a few incremental UI/UX changes one might imagine making; but that's really only because all the good service is provided by pirates who don't necessarily care about the last little bits of fit and finish, all the 'technically correct' service is provided by companies desperately catering to Team Content, and so tends to be a howling wasteland, with more DRM than content, and most of the real-world service is provided by the terrible people who think that the firmware that ships on cable boxes is acceptable.

Why do they still insist on these "channel" and "timeslot" things. These abstractions of a by gone age no longer make sense.

I'm betting on Google being the one to bring this down, they have the cash and the drive. Amazon and even Apple and Microsoft have a chance too. It just needs to be someone big enough to make the new distribution method easier and just as profitable to the content creators.

This is disappointing to me, and I think it's short sighted for Intel. While this isn't obviously playing to Intel's strengths, you don't develop new strengths without trying. And, ultimately, hardware is going to have limitations eventually. Moore's law will eventually hit physics and slow down enough that Intel will not have enough of a lead over its competition, it would be nice to have something else for revenue at that time. And, media is great in that you can invent the same thing over and over again and redistribute it to the same people. (While new computer sales are definitely slumping.)

Of course, I also thought that Cisco's foray into the flip video camera made sense as a sneaky way to grow networks, so maybe it's just too soon. But, if Intel doesn't try, Im not sure they'll get a second chance after Microsoft, Apple and Google.

Google Chromecast has the potential to make TV "smart" without even offering content of its own---except for perhaps advertising. With it you can already blend your TV watching with cable and internet. If the a la carte providers continue to grow and content-makers make content for them, then Google can do for TV what it's done for search. Targeted advertising and lower-cost content. Plus the potential for customized personal TV "networks" based on your viewing preferences and integration of other things into your TV screen.

Why do they still insist on these "channel" and "timeslot" things. These abstractions of a by gone age no longer make sense.

I'm betting on Google being the one to bring this down, they have the cash and the drive. Amazon and even Apple and Microsoft have a chance too. It just needs to be someone big enough to make the new distribution method easier and just as profitable to the content creators.

This has already happened with music, video is next.

It has sort of happend with music but most musical artists still have a 'label' or record company doing the marketing for them and encourage them to make lots of music that nobody wants. Few bands market their music directly from the studio to the consumer.

Channels and timeslots might seem constricting for viewers, but production studios can't produce hours and hours of content in one day. A series has to be parceled out for a variety of practical reasons. It may seem inconvenient but the anticipation is part of the experience, just like the release of a new book.

I’m constantly amazed that when I watch a show on my 27” iMac it plays out just fine, but when I try to send it to my 36” tv through airplay to my Apple TV I get a message telling me the “media rights holder” won’t let me watch it.

9 inches makes all the difference I guess. I wasn’t all that interested in your crappy watered-down show anyway.

But what other industry actively tells you how and where you can consume its product? It’s like if Butterball said you can’t eat turkey for dinner except on Thanksgiving, and then only then at the dining room table with your family. Most companies are just happy you bought their product and don’t give a crap what you do with it, as long as you use it as a murder weapon.

The funny thing is, there’s really no way they can compete with the 100 hours of content uploaded to Youtube every minute. It may not have as much polish as the big Hollywood productions but the sheer volume means you’ll likley find <i>something</i> worth watching. And you can bet the people uploading to Youtube would be happy you watched their show, and don’t give a rat’s rear where you’re watching it.

Back on topic, this is why all these walled gardens and DRM’d up set tops are doomed. Netflicks and Amazon prime are bridge devices, but in the long run anyone will be a producer and take content directly to the audience, gatekeepers be damned.

Back on topic, this is why all these walled gardens and DRM’d up set tops are doomed. Netflicks and Amazon prime are bridge devices, but in the long run anyone will be a producer and take content directly to the audience, gatekeepers be damned.

The problem with this is that producing quality content costs serious money. That's why traditional channels still work for a lot of content, like documentaries. When everyone starts pushing content, without selection by a channel (or Netflix), the viewers get spread too thin to make enough money. It's why youtube channels don't work for quality content.

Seriously Intel give it up and design chips. Nobody wants to use your reference designs and you have no idea about software.

In fairness to Intel, their compiler team is said to be pretty good (and only sometimes cheating on benchmarks); but the rest of them can live in shame and repentance until they manage to explain, in layman's terms, what 'ViiV' was supposed to be.

Stick to chips and developer tools, Intel. The only "successful" other venture I remember recently is their "successful" attempt to drive up the price of entry-level notebooks and lock out other vendors with their Ultrabook branding. Thanks lots for that, Intel.

Seriously Intel give it up and design chips. Nobody wants to use your reference designs and you have no idea about software.

In fairness to Intel, their compiler team is said to be pretty good (and only sometimes cheating on benchmarks); but the rest of them can live in shame and repentance until they manage to explain, in layman's terms, what 'ViiV' was supposed to be.

Viiv gave me that cynical attitude. It was something my company could do. Not a product but a "framework" of blueprints guidelines, technologies etc. It was the closest you could come to a PowerPoint implementation of technology and sadly something my company might do. You knew it was doomed after the first announcement.

... the only innovation Intel offered them was the ability to track viewer feedback through a camera embedded in the set-top box. But by June of this year, signs of trouble surfaced. ...

Sounds to me like the only "change" that Big Media might potentially have been interested in, would have been universally despised by the viewing audience. If I ever found out that my set-top box had a camera embedded in it, watching my every move while I watched TV, it wouldn't take me long to pull out a pad of sticky notes, to close off that little spy-cam.

The funny thing is, there’s really no way they can compete with the 100 hours of content uploaded to Youtube every minute. It may not have as much polish as the big Hollywood productions but the sheer volume means you’ll likley find <i>something</i> worth watching. And you can bet the people uploading to Youtube would be happy you watched their show, and don’t give a rat’s rear where you’re watching it.

Back on topic, this is why all these walled gardens and DRM’d up set tops are doomed. Netflicks and Amazon prime are bridge devices, but in the long run anyone will be a producer and take content directly to the audience, gatekeepers be damned.

... the only innovation Intel offered them was the ability to track viewer feedback through a camera embedded in the set-top box. But by June of this year, signs of trouble surfaced. ...

Sounds to me like the only "change" that Big Media might potentially have been interested in, would have been universally despised by the viewing audience. If I ever found out that my set-top box had a camera embedded in it, watching my every move while I watched TV, it wouldn't take me long to pull out a pad of sticky notes, to close off that little spy-cam.